Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer is a well-respected writer and journalist when it comes to political issues. Though he’s not pro-life, an article of his in newspapers across the nation today calls on the Supreme Court to reverse its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling allowing abortion on demand.

Krauthammer doesn’t want the decision reversed because he thinks abortion is a travesty or sympathizes with the plight of unborn children who see their life snuffed out.

Instead, he thinks the high court took away the right of people to voice their views on abortion on a state by state basis through their legislatures.

"Legalizing abortion by judicial fiat instead of by democratic means has its price," Krauthammer writes. "One is that the issue remains socially unsettled. People take to the streets when they have been deprived of resort to legislative action."

"The other effect is to render the very debate hopelessly muddled," he says.

"Instead of discussing what a decent society owes women and what it owes soon-to-be-born infants, and trying to balance the two by politically hammering out regulations that a broad national consensus can support, we debate the constitutional niceties of a 35-year-old appallingly crafted Supreme Court decision," Krauthammer says.

The columnist said he "hope[s] for the day when Roe is overturned," but not because he supports the aims and goals of the pro-life movement.

In fact Krauthammer admitted that he once voted in Maryland to pass a referendum to keep abortion legal if Roe is ever reversed.

Instead, he favors allowing the people of the United States to determine the outcome of abortion for themselves — ironically something the pro-life movement has called for since 1973, when the court handed down the ruling.

"Abortion is already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy? Let the people decide," Krauthammer concludes.

"Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out — by political argument and legislative accommodation."